Friday Fun Stuff--DeLay dispute moving up through the courts

Former House Majority Whip U.S. Representative Tom Delay (R-TX) walks from the U.S. Capitol building to his office in the Cannon House building on the day that his resignation goes into effect on Capitol Hill in Washington, June 9, 2006. REUTERS/Evan Sisley (UNITED STATES)

For today's Friday Fun Stuff, I couldn't help but smile at this latest exciting episode of The Tom DeLay Comedy Hour! Come to think of it, we haven't had an episode of The Tom DeLay Comedy Hour for a while. This is from ABC News:

AUSTIN, Texas Jul 7, 2006 (AP)--With state election deadlines closing in, the legal fight over whether to keep indicted former U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on the November ballot moves next to a higher court.

The Texas Republican Party plans to appeal federal Judge Sam Sparks' ruling Thursday that DeLay must remain on the ballot even though he resigned from office and isn't actively campaigning for re-election.

At issue in the federal court case is the U.S. Constitution wording stating that a member of Congress must be an "inhabitant" of the state where his or her district is at the time of election. Also central in the dispute is the Texas Election Code and its provisions for scratching candidates from the ballot.

Democrats acknowledge they want to keep DeLay's legal troubles in voters' minds as Democrat Nick Lampson, a former congressman, seeks the 22nd congressional district seat in suburban Houston. DeLay, the former House majority leader, faces money laundering and conspiracy charges connected to the financing of Texas legislative campaigns in 2002.

DeLay won his March primary and then announced a month later that he would be leaving office and moving to Virginia. DeLay left Congress on June 9.

Republican Party state chair Tina Benkiser said under state law she could declare DeLay "ineligible" for the ballot because she received proof of his move out of state, thus allowing a party committee to name a new nominee. Had DeLay simply "withdrawn," the party wouldn't be allowed to replace him in the race under state law.

This is an interesting political case here. I think what we have here is a Republican Party that has been thrown into chaos due to DeLay's own selfish political ambitions. DeLay originally believed he could fight these money laundering and conspiracy charges, while at the same time campaign to keep his seat on the House of Representatives. DeLay was unwilling to step down, and allow the Texas Republican voters choose a new candidate during the Texas primary. DeLay won the Republican nomination for House rep in the 22nd congressional district. But then a funny thing happened. With Tom DeLay campaigning for his seat, details of both DeLay's money laundering scheme, and DeLay's connection with the Jack Abramoff scandal, started to stick to his campaign, thus eroding his support. It is also no wonder that Democratic opponent Nick Lampson relentlessly attacked DeLay on the issue of corruption. Tom DeLay's chances of getting re-elected were going up in smoke.

So what can the Republicans do? Their top candidate is falling behind in the polls, while facing criminal charges. The Texas primary is over. If Tom DeLay formally withdrawals from the race, the Republican Party cannot replace him with a new candidate. So we get this Republican end-run around Texas election laws, where DeLay is announcing that he's moving out of Texas and into Virginia, thus making him ineligible to run, and allowing the Republicans to replace him with a new nominee. DeLay wanted to keep his House seat while fighting the criminal charges against him. When he realized he couldn't do both, he had to find a way to resign his congressional seat and withdrawal from the race in such a way so that the Republicans can appoint a new successor to his seat. The Republicans know that if they do not have a replacement candidate on the ballot to challenge Lampson, the seat will go to Lampson. That is why we have this Republican circumvention of Texas election law. In fact, there is no telling whether DeLay will actually stay in Virginia, or move back to Texas after the November elections. Consider this detail on the DeLay dispute from Yahoo News:

Democrats contended that Texas law did not override the U.S. Constitution, which only requires a candidate be a resident on election day of the state where the congressional district is located.

As proof of his move, DeLay, in a hearing in Austin last week, produced a driver's license, a voter registration card and an income tax withholding form from Virginia and said he planned to live in that state indefinitely.

Democrats argued DeLay's wife continues to live in their Sugar Land, Texas, home.

"There is no evidence that DeLay will still be living in Virginia tomorrow, let alone on November 7, 2006, the only day that matters under the qualifications clause of the U.S. Constitution," Sparks wrote in his ruling.

Tom DeLay still has his Sugar Land, Texas, home, where is wife still resides at. And while DeLay produced a Virginia driver's license and voter registration cards as his "proof" of being a Virginia citizen, it is still too easy for DeLay to move back to Texas to set up a new election campaign to retake his seat in the 22nd congressional district--that is, if DeLay is not found guilty of the criminal charges filed against him.

This case now moves up to the Fifth Circut Court of Appeals. It is going to be interesting to see how the Fifth Circut rules on this case.